Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Sugar Killing Us?

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 274 posts

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#251

Post by sgtpepper43 »

enjikaka wrote: post #79
neals wrote: post #70

I've really cut down on sugar from august to november. I didn't really notice anything except loosing a lot of weight (mind that I already was under weight, but I should probably build some muscle anyway) So in comes December. And there is candy and chocolate everywhere. In just a single week our house filled up with it and here I am, stuffing my face full of sugar. I think the struggle just goes on, right?

Just keep on going without sugar after December. See the December candy as a treat for being off sugar for a while. :) I didn't eat - stuff with added - sugar for about a year a few years back. Was pretty nazi on it, didn't just cut down a little bit. I read all the labels and didn't even buy bread with added sugar or syrup etc. Lost 30 kgs. Never felt so good. Sugar is poison, really should eat it. The best thing is…

After being off sugar for only two weeks I had a melon. It. Was. Amazing.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#252

Post by sametmax »

overgard wrote: post #185
sametmax wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes we evolve from a common ancestor with the monkey, which used to eat mainly fruit, hence sugar.

Fruit tends to be healthy because the sugar (fructose) is wrapped in protein and fiber. In other words, it's very very distilled. That's the reason why eating an orange is a lot healthier than drinking orange juice. But we do know that fructose is VERY bad for you (high fructose corn syrup is much worse than sucrose alone).

I don't think it's the distilled part that is important. I doubt the quantity is as important as the other nutriments you get that makes your body functions well enough so that you can benefit from all the sugar.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#253

Post by edem »

WA wrote: post #104
neals wrote: post #70

I've really cut down on sugar from august to november. I didn't really notice anything except loosing a lot of weight (mind that I already was under weight, but I should probably build some muscle anyway) So in comes December. And there is candy and chocolate everywhere. In just a single week our house filled up with it and here I am, stuffing my face full of sugar. I think the struggle just goes on, right?

I cut sugar for 40 days in April and lost weight, too (having normal weight). After a while, I was back to old habits. Thought about trying the same thing in mid-November. Worked alright. Then came December and while I'm eating a cookie here and there, it's way less than previous years. I think the struggle just goes on, right? To some extend: Yes. But something flipped in my head this time. The struggle is less seri…

How did you make that switch flip? I'm struggling to find it for years.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#254

Post by lawless123 »

iopq wrote: post #96
dogma1138 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Processed cheese like that block of cheese in the meme contains quite a bit of sugar it's added to make it "taste better".

They also don't age it properly, they usually only age it for 18 months or less to realize the return on investment sooner.

some of the storebought stuff would only be aged weeks.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#255

Post by croon »

overgard wrote: post #219
croon wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but you are the one that tripped the final wire for me: What exactly is an "empty calorie"? What metric is it low on? It has calories. What is it empty of?

So, a "calorie" is just a measurement of energy produced when something is burned. Like, really, that's it. Proteins have specific uses, and some of them can't be produced by your body, so that would be an example of a "non-empty" calorie. Same thing with lipids. Carbohydrates are, essentially, sugar. (Once they're broken down). Obviously you can use them for energy, and they're useful in that regard, but once you ha…

Your answer is informative, so I can't fault you for that, but I already know this. I asked because "empty calories" is (almost) always uttered in the same breath as either 1) no real information or 2) comparing to other carbohydrates.

I do however take issue with this:

> but once you have "enough" carbohydrates to fuel whatever activity you're doing adding more just causes your body to convert them into fat. So, that's why they're considered "emtpy"

That's true with any calorie. By that definition any calorie you're not using is empty.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#256

Post by croon »

iopq wrote: post #249
croon wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a flaw in your logic. True; obese people aren't just eating too much sugar, but also fat (and protein), but the problem is still the sugar. The sugar makes you hungry, making you able to eat more fat (which is highly calorie dense). If you cut the sugar (and other high GI/II carbs), you will eat a lot less of the rest. Sure, the problem in calorie intake is the combination, but eating just fat and protein is…

Except for the people who get fat without eating almost any sugar and just eat plain old starches. Not everyone enjoys sweet things.

Sure, but if you read my entire post I accounted for this. You could just s/sugar/carbs/ in my post if you'd like.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#257

Post by croon »

DanBC wrote: post #177
croon wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a flaw in your logic. True; obese people aren't just eating too much sugar, but also fat (and protein), but the problem is still the sugar. The sugar makes you hungry, making you able to eat more fat (which is highly calorie dense). If you cut the sugar (and other high GI/II carbs), you will eat a lot less of the rest. Sure, the problem in calorie intake is the combination, but eating just fat and protein is…

> The sugar makes you hungry, making you able to eat more fat (which is highly calorie dense). If you cut the sugar (and other high GI/II carbs), you will eat a lot less of the rest. Do you have any credible research on this? I'd be interested to read it.

Sure, do you mind if I just link-dump? Otherwise let me know:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24819342

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16129086

Low carb AND low fat https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139783/

This paper is often quoted when talking about eating regularly vs rarely (IF), in which the subjects were given meals with 70/15/15 of carbs/protein/fat, in which regular eaters consumed less: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578205

This is a paper on a similar trial with 60/14/26 and 49/25/26 macro comp instead, with opposite results (meaning you were full longer when eating less carbs): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034047/

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#258

Post by GrinningFool »

overgard wrote: post #246
GrinningFool wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it has failed spectacularly. Obesity rates have skyrocketed upward despite continual exhortations to cut calories. So, the proof is in the pudding. Continual exhortations does not mean calories have been cut. The fact that it's still said so often and loudly indicates that either it's not effective, or people aren't doing it. > us assume basal metabolism of 2,000 calories per day. > Walking for 45 minutes might…

So it took you 24 months to lose 50 pounds (and congrats, no small feat), whereas Ive lost 25 pounds in 2 months with much less effort. Sample size of 2, sure, but my approach sure does seem to be an order of a magnitude more effective. Why would I want to do your diet when it requires more work for less results?

I'm happy to discuss further in one year - because immediate results aren't the same as results that last and a lot of non pseudo-science research has shown that weight lost that rapidly (3-4 lbs a week) doesn't tend to stay off.

And in any case, I'm glad you found something that works for you. I found something that works for me, with much less effort and longer-lasting effect than the various extremes I've tried in the past.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#259

Post by dandelion_lover »

mastazi wrote: post #218
dandelion_lover wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>show me academic papers https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2012/11/19/ask-...

Not a paper but at least it's a reference to a paper from a reputable source. Now the problem is I couldn't find the part where it says eat 1kg of butter per day. So how does this counter the parent comment?

I see no reasoning about 1 kg of butter anywhere in the parent comment. The source I provided proofs that most people eat much more sugar than it is advised/healthy and indeed should drastically decrease their sugar consumption.

Of course you should not stop eating any sugar. You need 24-36 gramms/day [0]. What you should stop consuming is added sugar. Your food will contain enough sugar anyway.

[0] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/a...

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#260

Post by WA »

edem wrote: post #253
WA wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cut sugar for 40 days in April and lost weight, too (having normal weight). After a while, I was back to old habits. Thought about trying the same thing in mid-November. Worked alright. Then came December and while I'm eating a cookie here and there, it's way less than previous years. I think the struggle just goes on, right? To some extend: Yes. But something flipped in my head this time. The struggle is less seri…

How did you make that switch flip? I'm struggling to find it for years.

I don't know exactly. I guess it's a series of realizations.

a) Sometimes, we see candy as some kind of reward or treat. Most children are given chocolate etc. as a reward. So, to a certain extend, it is seen as something special. Most chocolates are marketed as special, as a reward, as well. But to be honest, chocolate is cheap and there is an endless supply.

The realization for me is: There is no shortage. There is no scarcity. There is no need to eat it. I can buy candy whenever I want. There's really nothing special about it. In fact, most chocolate is quite nasty anyways, cheaply produced garbage, especially in the US ;)

b) It's an addiction and the desire fades, if you don't eat sugar for a while. I'm an all-or-nothing guy. If I eat a bit of chocolate once, I might as well eat it every day.

I must cut it entirely and fight cravings by other means. Someone suggested drinking a glass of water. This works. I ate some sugar-free gum once in a while to fight cravings.

For some people, this won't work and they need to allow themselves a cheat day once per week or something like that.

c) Eating sugar is a habit and breaking it gives you more awareness of your behavior, which I find desirable in general.

d) I like to see myself as a person who eats healthy.

e) I like to see myself as a person who is able to resist sugar, especially because everybody finds it totally normal to eat tons of sugar and doesn't see the problem. This plays to my ego ;)

f) After a few days, it's less about avoiding sugar, but to not break the chain of abstinence. Think Seinfeld-calendar.

Post reply on HN